Anti- family values

Leave it to Slidell state Sen. A.G. Crowe to wear his true motivation on his sleeve. Other supporters of House Bill 60, which would preclude the state from issuing amended birth certificates to two unmarried out-of-state parents, are busy trying to convince everyone that this is a dry, legalistic matter.

"This is still a family values country, and it has continually been attacked, " he said during a Senate Health & Welfare Committee hearing last week. "I'm not going to sit by and let it happen."

In other words, he's not going to sit by and let unmarried couples -- straight or, yes, gay -- get their hands on a Louisiana-issued document acknowledging their status as legal parents, even if their own states recognize them as such.

It doesn't matter that the argument behind the bill already has been rejected by a George W. Bush-appointed federal judge. In ruling that Louisiana should issue a revised birth certificate to two unmarried men who adopted a Shreveport-born toddler in New York, U.S. District Court Judge Jay Zainey said the full faith and credit clause of the U.S. Constitution requires Louisiana to honor other states' laws and court rulings.

Gov. Bobby Jindal doesn't think so and is supporting an appeal. He's also promised to sign the legislation, which has passed the state House and is awaiting a final vote in the Senate.

Most supporters, unlike Crowe, have the sophistication to at least suggest the bill isn't motivated by their distaste for same-sex couples.

The bill's main sponsor, state Rep. Jonathan Perry, says he just wants to clarify the existing state law that only allows married couples and single people to adopt, not target certain unpopular individuals. Officials at the state's vital records office say it's all about the sanctity of public documents, and point out that one partner in any relationship can be listed on the birth certificate.

Kyle Duncan, the assistant attorney general tasked with handling both the court case and the legislation, says the issue is really federalism.

The legislation is not meant to target gay couples like the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, he told a Senate committee last week.

If that's the case, then why are conservative Christian groups that generally oppose gay rights, such as the Louisiana Family Forum, pushing the issue? And why is Crowe the point person in the Senate?

The senator is not exactly known for subtlety, certainly not on matters involving homosexuality.

A few years back, he sabotaged a proposed bill to crack down on school bullying and intimidation based on a series of "perceived characteristics" including race, religion, disability and sexual orientation. Crowe pushed a hostile amendment that made a joke out of the whole idea by adding a list of new factors including acne, height and zodiac sign.

Make no mistake, he's a card-carrying member of the self-appointed morality police, which is exactly who's driving this bill.

But hey, at least he's up front about it.

His fellow supporters can make all the technical arguments in the world, but if the bill becomes law, the true implications are these:

It would put the state in the business of corrupting those very records proponents say they want to protect by misrepresenting children's legal parentage.

And it would make life harder for people who only want to give kids a home and a family, and for the children themselves. It could keep legal parents from registering their kid in school or receiving insurance benefits. And it could leave families in limbo if the one parent listed on the birth certificate should die.

If those are family values, then who needs them?

. . . . . . .

Stephanie Grace is a staff writer. She may be reached at 504.826.3383 or at sgrace@timespicayune.com.